Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. Curso

Brothers and sisters of a deceased passenger are not entitled to recover moral damages for mental anguish in an action for breach of contract of carriage, the enumeration of beneficiaries in Article 2206(3) of the Civil Code being exclusive by application of the principle inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

On October 23, 1988, Dr. Cenon E. Curso boarded the MV Doña Marilyn, an inter-island vessel owned and operated by Sulpicio Lines, Inc., bound for Tacloban City. The vessel sank the following afternoon due to inclement weather caused by Typhoon Unsang. Dr. Curso died in the sinking; his body was never recovered. He was 48 years old, single, without issue, and his parents had predeceased him. His surviving siblings filed suit against the carrier for damages based on breach of contract of carriage.

• The Voyage and Sinking: Dr. Cenon E. Curso boarded the MV Doña Marilyn at the port of Manila on October 23, 1988, bound for Tacloban City. The vessel sank on October 24, 1988, due to inclement sea and weather conditions brought about by Typhoon Unsang. Hundreds of passengers died, and Dr. Curso's body was not recovered.
• The Complaint: On January 21, 1993, the surviving brothers and sisters of Dr. Curso filed a complaint in the RTC against Sulpicio Lines for breach of contract of carriage by sea, alleging negligence. They sought compensatory damages, moral damages, exemplary damages, litigation expenses, attorney's fees, and costs of suit.
• Carrier's Defense: Sulpicio Lines denied liability, attributing the sinking to force majeure (Typhoon Unsang). The carrier asserted the vessel was seaworthy and cleared by the Philippine Coast Guard, and that it conducted search and rescue operations and extended aid to victims' families post-sinking.

• Lack of Entitlement to Moral Damages: Petitioner argued that the brothers and sisters of a deceased passenger are not entitled to moral damages in an action for breach of contract of carriage.
• Misapplication of Law and Precedent: Petitioner maintained that the CA disregarded Article 1764 and Article 2206 of the Civil Code, as well as the ruling in Receiver for North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. v. Ybañez, which disallowed moral damages to siblings of a deceased passenger.
• Insufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner contended that even if siblings were entitled to claim moral damages, the award should not have been granted absent evidence of the siblings' personal suffering.

• Carrier Negligence: Respondents argued that the carrier failed to exercise the required degree of diligence, having inadequately monitored the typhoon and failed to ensure the vessel's seaworthiness, as evidenced by the failure of the ship's hydraulic system mid-voyage.
• Entitlement to Moral Damages: Respondents asserted that they suffered great grief and took great pains to recover their brother's body in vain, justifying an award of moral damages under the breach of contract.

• Entitlement to Moral Damages: Whether the brothers and sisters of a deceased passenger are entitled to an award of moral damages against the carrier in a case of breach of contract of carriage.
• Award Despite Lack of Evidence: Assuming siblings are entitled to claim moral damages, whether the award should be granted notwithstanding the lack of evidence regarding their personal suffering.

• Entitlement to Moral Damages: Siblings are not entitled to moral damages. Article 2206(3) of the Civil Code exclusively enumerates the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants, and ascendants as persons who may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. The omission of siblings reveals the legislative intent to exclude them, applying the principle inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. Courts cannot correct the law by reading into it what is not written.
• Award Despite Lack of Evidence: Not reached, as the first issue is dispositive. However, moral damages require a right based on law, and Article 2219 does not include succession in the collateral line as a source of such right. The phrase "analogous cases" in Article 2219 is limited by the ejusdem generis rule to situations similar to those expressly enumerated.

• Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius — The express inclusion of one implies the exclusion of all others. Applied to interpret Article 2206(3), where the express inclusion of the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants implied the exclusion of brothers and sisters from recovering moral damages for mental anguish by reason of death.
• Ejusdem generis — General words following specific words are limited to things of the same kind as those specified. Applied to the phrase "analogous cases" in Article 2219, meaning the situation must be similar to those expressly enumerated by law.

• "The omission from Article 2206 (3) of the brothers and sisters of the deceased passenger reveals the legislative intent to exclude them from the recovery of moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased."
• "The solemn power and duty of the courts to interpret and apply the law do not include the power to correct the law by reading into it what is not written therein."

• Receiver for North Negros Sugar Co., Inc. v. Ybañez, G.R. No. L-22183, August 30, 1968, 24 SCRA 979 — Followed. Disallowed the award of moral damages in favor of the brothers and sisters of a deceased passenger in an action upon breach of a contract of carriage.
• Japan Airlines v. Simangan, G.R. No. 170141, April 22, 2008, 552 SCRA 341 — Cited. Stated the general rule that moral damages are not recoverable in actions predicated on a breach of contract, unless there is fraud or bad faith.
• Victory Liner, Inc. v. Gammad, G.R. No. 159636, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 355 — Cited. Recognized the exception that moral damages may be awarded in case of breach of contract of carriage that results in the death of a passenger.
• Morris v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127957, February 21, 2001, 352 SCRA 428 — Cited. Summarized when moral damages may be recovered in an action upon breach of contract of carriage.
• Villanueva v. Salvador, G.R. No. 139436, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 39 — Cited. Enumerated the conditions for awarding moral damages.

• Article 1764, Civil Code — Provides that damages in cases comprised in the section on common carriers shall be awarded in accordance with Title XVIII concerning Damages, and Article 2206 shall apply to the death of a passenger caused by breach of contract.
• Article 2206(3), Civil Code — Enumerates the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased as those who may demand moral damages for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. Interpreted to exclude siblings by legislative omission.
• Article 2219, Civil Code — Circumscribes the instances in which moral damages may be recovered. Held not to include succession in the collateral line as a source of the right to recover moral damages.
• Article 1003, Civil Code — Provides that collateral relatives shall succeed to the entire estate if there are no descendants, ascendants, illegitimate children, or surviving spouse. Held not concerned with the recovery of moral damages.

Reynato S. Puno (CJ), Conchita Carpio Morales, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Martin S. Villarama, Jr.